Culture War Archives - Page 1052 of 1076

UK Lord Justice wanted age of consent to 4 years old — news blackout in America

April 24, 2014/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, News/by Dr. Judith Reisman

Lord Justice Fulford, pictured in his full legal regalia, actively campaigned to support a pedophile group that tried to legalize sex with children.
Photo courtesy of the UK Daily Mail.

Read: High Court judge and the child sex ring: Adviser to Queen was founder of paedophile support group to keep offenders out of jail

Lord Justice Fulford was named last year as an adviser to the Queen
He was a key backer of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange
Police suspect the group of abusing children on an ‘industrial scale’
He is revealed as a founder member of campaign to defend PIE
At the time it was calling for the age of consent to be lowered to just four

I clashed with Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) global leaders at the Wales conference in Swansea in 1977.

Tom O’Carroll is still accepted and active on a sexnet chat group of experts in “sexology” although he writes openly as a pedophile. And the scholarly organizers of the Swansea conference at the University were part of his efforts. Below a summary of my intro to him in my book, Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence, 2013. This academic pedophile lobby has continued and grown, training second generation and third generation supporters as “scholars” for pedophile equality and “rights.” In 1981 I realized they were global. See the B4UAct conference with Johns Hopkins keynoter, here and here.

From my book:

Another turning point came in 1977 when I went to Wales to deliver a research paper on women and pornography at the British Psychological Association International Conference on “Love and Attraction” at Swansea University. When I arrived in London, I heard that Tom O’Carroll, the leader of the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE), had been blanketing England on a public relations tour, promoting sex with children on his way to speak at my Swansea conference.

All of England was in an uproar over the daily press reports describing the aims of PIE and O’Carroll. It was reported that PIE specialized in providing specific lists of places where pedophiles could locate and seduce children. When they heard O’Carroll was to speak from their college podium, the Swansea University housekeeping staff went on strike. He speaks and your beds will not be made, nor food cooked, nor clothes washed, they promised. They would not have the conference give place to a man promoting sex with their children.

I brought eighty slides for my presentation as evidence supporting my findings of child pornography in Playboy and Penthouse. I had already clashed with an American professor, Larry Constantine, a Penthouse board member advocating child pornography in his paper on “The Sexual Rights of Children.” [Tulane University professor at the time]

So, when Constantine sent out a harried bulletin for a meeting of conference speakers, I hastened to join the group. Constantine was urging all international attendees to sign a “free speech” petition demanding that PIE’s O’Carroll speak—and that our beds be made. I urged the group to reconsider. We were guests here and would leave in a few days, I reasoned. What right had we to leave behind a community undone by our having given place to a proselytizing child molester? I was the only speaker to refuse to sign the petition. Ultimately, the Swansea University president ruled that O’Carroll was not credentialed to speak. Housekeeping service resumed.

How and Why, I wondered… was the university’s domestic staff able to aggressively protect their children, while trained academicians remained apathetic, even sympathetic toward this pedophile, O’Carroll? My old dissatisfaction with the university community increased as these men and women exhibited such indifference to their hosts, contemptuous of what I saw as very legitimate public concerns for their children’s safety.

O’Carroll was whisked safely out of Wales. I was leaving for the London train when a Canadian psychologist took me quietly aside. Certainly I was right, he said. The images I screened of children in Playboy/ Penthouse would cause harmful sexual acting out on children. But if I was looking for the cause, he directed me not to neglect reading about Kinsey in The Sex Researchers, by Edward Brecher.

“Why?” I asked. “I worked with Kinsey and Pomeroy,” he said. “ One is a pedophile and the other a homosexual.” Which is which, I asked? “Read and discover,” he replied. As I flew back to the States, I pondered the events of the last few weeks. Certainly, I now knew because I had witnessed it, that there was a growing and proselytizing “international academic pedophile movement” which was on record as wanting sexual access to children of all ages. I had stumbled right into their midst at the conference. Again I wondered what kind of academic training was producing such a coarsened and predatory intelligentsia?

Taking up the Canadian psychologist’s charge, as soon as I got home I did read The Sex Researchers.

Skipped to next section in my book…

I was unsure which stunned me more at the time, Kinsey’s use of infants in sex experiments, or Brecher’s acceptance of their abuse as a research methodology. Speechless, I went back to Kinsey’s original book to check Brecher. Yes, he was quoting Kinsey accurately. Now I finally knew there was a “source,” an authority for children’s increasingly being viewed sexually. For me, personally, the question from years before was answered. My aunt and Carole somehow learned that “children were sexual from birth” from Kinsey and his modern disciples throughout the sex profession.

In March 1981 I received a reply to my letter to The Kinsey Institute from Kinsey’s coauthor, Dr. Paul Gebhard. I had written to ask about the child data in Tables 30-34. Gebhard, who succeeded Dr. Kinsey as the Kinsey Institute Director, wrote to me that the children in Kinsey’s tables were obtained from parents, school teachers and male homosexuals, and that some of Kinsey’s men used “manual and oral techniques” to catalog how many “orgasms” infants and children could produce in a given amount of time.

Armed with Gebhard’s letter and admissions, on July 23, 1981, I created an uproar in Jerusalem at the Fifth World Congress of Sexology when I lectured on Dr. Kinsey and his child data. I was confident my sexology colleagues would be as outraged as was I by these tables and the child data describing Kinsey’s reliance on pedophiles as his child sex experimenters. Perhaps worst of all for me, as a scholar and a mother were pages 160 and 161 where Kinsey claimed his data came from “interviews.” How could he say 196 little children— some as young as two months of age—enjoyed “fainting,” “screaming,” “weeping,” and “convulsing”? How could he call these children’s responses evidence of their sexual pleasure and “climax”? I called it evidence of terror, of pain, as well as criminal.

One of us was very, very sexually mixed up.

I was positive that the international, educated, sexuality community would react as I did. Certainly this revelation about Kinsey, his team, and all of these infant and child data would electrify a conference of global Ph.Ds, and many would agree to my call for an investigation of Kinsey. The human sexuality brain trust worldwide was in attendance at the Jerusalem conference: Great Britain,the United States, France, Denmark, Israel, Norway, Canada, Scotland, Holland, Sweden and scores of other nations were represented. All attendees knew of my paper. It had been the talk of the convention, receiving even more notice than Xaviera Hollanders’ (“the Happy Hooker”) address on “Out of Touch With Sex.” People were abuzz about the issue of Kinsey’s children during the entire conference.

My paper, titled, “The Scientist as A Contributing Agent To Child Sexual Abuse; A Preliminary Consideration of Possible Ethics Violations,” had been released in the Abstracts. The result was no less than I expected—a standing-room only session. I was gratified that so many people were as concerned as I was. After screening my slides of Tables 30 to 34 which described Kinsey’s report of rates and speeds of ‘orgasms” of at least 317 infants and children (again, the youngest a mere two-months old), I rested my case and looked out over the audience. The room was totally silent. Finally, a tall, blond, Nordic type who had been standing near the podium stepped forward and fairly shouted at the audience:

I am a Swedish reporter and I never have spoken out at a conference. That is not my role. But, what is the matter with all of you? This woman has just dropped an atomic bomb in this very room and you have nothing to ask? Nothing to say?

That broke the ice, and hands shot up to speak. Although a Kinsey Institute representative protested that none of this was true, and comments from those in attendance were limited by the conference moderator, (there was a tacit agreement that an investigation would take place). The reaction in the room was heavy: it was numbing for some, discomforting for others. Later, the director of sex education for Sweden approached to tell me she was shocked that children were used without consent. However, she hastened to assure me that children could be sexually stimulated by adults, even parents, were this for strictly therapeutic reasons, of course. Late that afternoon my young assistant from Haifa University returned from lunch visibly shaken.

She had dined at a private table with the international executives of the conference. My paper was hotly contested and largely condemned, since everyone at her table of about twelve men and women wholeheartedly agreed that children could, indeed, have “loving” sex with adults.

I began to realize that the entire field of sex research therapy and education relied on Kinsey’s human sexuality model for authority, and I was there to tell his key disciples Kinsey was a fraud. While I was very disappointed to witness the fear and protectionism of the attendees, with so many international agencies present with vested economic and emotional interests in Kinsey’s credibility, I understood why the promised investigation of Kinsey never would take place.

Perspective: For Success in Life is to See the Possibilities in Life

April 24, 2014/in Culture War, Must Read, News/by Dr. Richard Ruhling, MD

Perspective enables us to see the possibilities in our lives. If we thought the world was flat, we might never venture out to sea or accept the challenge to a more fulfilling purpose.

Brendon Burchard’s six secrets of highly effective people are: Purpose, Presence, Psychology, Physiology, Productivity and Persuasion. Burchard asks: How can I serve greatly? But more basic than having a purpose in life, is the need for perspective of who we are and what is possible.

Example: An earthworm may wonder, How can I serve greatly? Earthworms make a valuable contribution to soil fertility and aeration, but they usually don’t see the light of day in spite of their great service.

On the other hand, God calls Jacob a worm and says He will make of him a threshing instrument to beat the hills as chaff (with a worm!) The One who hung the stars and gave Saturn 62 moons is able to do whatever He says. Do we think Saturn’s moons just fell into orbit from a “Big Bang”? This observer with three degrees in science sees (perspective) that Intelligent Design suggests a Designer.

Not to include that possibility is to sell ourselves short on purpose in life.

The amazing thing is God’s abillity to foresee the future as supported by the dream Nebuchadnezzar had and Daniel’s reminding him of what the dream was. He revealed the four kingdoms to rule the world, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia and Rome.

Though Rome is not named in the book of Daniel, the clues as an iron kingdom and imagery in Daniel 7:7 fit Rome and the 10 tribes that roamed Europe after it fell, represented by the 10 horns that grew out of the beast.

But in Daniel 2:35, afterr four kingdoms rule the world and after a time of iron and clay mixed, a stone smites the image representing earthly kingdoms, and grinds it to chaff. Daniel 2:35.

As we approach the end-times that are foretold in Matthew 24 by “wars, famines, earthquakes and pestilence, we would do better to base our lives, hopes, meaning and security in things that are eternal and cannot be taken from us.

The dumbest of saints may soon be in a more enviable position than the richest billionaire. Maybe bankers see “the handwriting on the wall,” a reference to Daniel 5:5. With more than 20 reported “suicides,” Max Keiser (Financial War Reports) believes it has to do with ” self-hatred and guilt.”

Nobody takes their money with them when they go, so what good is the excess? In the end, Brendon’s near-death experience and three questions are a key to perspective:

Did I live?
Did I love?
Did I matter?

In spite of our best efforts to help others and serve many, we may see little good at the end. Even Christ who served thousands only a few followers at the cross.

If his life were only a fable, we might wonder how he got the support of four gospels from men who ran when he was captured, but later they were willing to die for a risen Savior.

Would we die for a lie? It’s more than an Easter story with eggs, rabbits and chocolates that have nothing to do with the history!

Back to Brendon’s basics: Perspective trumps purpose, because the earthworm with purpose doesn’t see possibilities. Robert Schuler offers help with “Possibility Thinking.” We all like Earl Nightingale definition of success as the progressive realization of a worthy goal.

But could there be a Creator who made us in His image and promises to “make [us] ruler over all that He has” if we align our goals with His mission? The conditions are not difficult if we are willing.

This is not some cheap internet offer; it’s from the Ruler of the universe, and there’s more to this iceberg than we can see on the surface. He is committed, not to the fickle masses following mainstream media, but to those who catch the vision (perspective) and give themselves to His worthy cause. Living this way is very satisfying.

Florida’s School Board Treachery! Part 2

April 24, 2014/in Culture War, Education, Policy, Politics/by Diane Kepus

Many have sent letters to Governor Scott, the legislature and the members of the State Board of Education and they were all very good letters. I had so many of you send me what you had written before sending them out and I am honored for your trust.

Florida is in a serious and precarious position having the additional burden of all of those mentioned above plus Jen Bush and the rest of the crony club to deal with. We, true Florida are angry and frustrated because we have listened and learned and we know their concern is not for our children but for their coffers. Money, Power and Control!

Having written about the Chairman of the School Board first I thought I would jump to the end to introduce the new members of the State School Board since they are both so interesting.

Rebecca Fishman Lipsey

Let me introduce you to Rebecca Fishman Lipsey!

In her biography she states she is a life-long educator at the age of 32. Let’s take a look at how she got to that experience.

She graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in Psychology in 2004; attended Bank Street College of Education 2004-06 for her Masters and during the same period was teaching for Teach For America (TFA) in the NYC schools. Two years of actual teaching and then in 2006, she became a Program Director for TFA, but she is a life-ling educator!

If you have never heard of Bank Street College of Education it is probably because you are a strong Christian Conservative. Bank Street is not, to say the least, anything but Progressive.

Bank Street College of Education was founded by Lucy Sprague Mitchell as the Bureau of Educational Experiments (BEE). They were deeply involved in the creation of the “Head Start” program along with the National Education Association which created the Educational Policies Commission (EPC). Bank Street in their teaching and beliefs stated they were influenced by revolutionary educator John Dewey and other humanists concluding they were building a new kind of educational system which is essential to building a better, more rational, humane world.

John Dewey! Governor Rick Scott, who recommended Rebecca Fishman Lipsey to sit on the Florida State School Board?

The Bureau of Education Experiments (BEE) also founded by Mitchell and her husband, stating their purpose was to “combine expanding psychological awareness with democratic conceptions of education. With a staff of researchers and teachers, the Bureau set out to study children – to find out what kind of environment is best suited to their learning and growth, to create that environment, and to train adults to maintain it”. CHANGE AGENTS!

A CHANGE AGENT you say! What is that? A change agent is identified as someone, usually a teacher who is trained to “identify the resisters in your community” (those parents/taxpayers who resist all the value destroying programs being implemented from the likes of people like Jeb Bush, Achieve, CCSSO and NGA, National Diffusion Network, and the U.S. Dept. of Education to name a few).

This idea of Change Agents came from Havelock’s work and his 1970 book “Innovations in Education – A Change Agent’s Guide”. He was a federally-funded Marxist who chaired the classics departments at both Harvard and Yale teacher training program of which the U.S. Dept. of Education was promoting, funding and distributing WORLDWIDE in the 80’s.

And, of UTMOST importance, the Guidance Counselor’s journal stated in a special issue it published in May 1977on “death education” that all these programs which had “education” hanging off the end of them: “sex, drugs, alcohol, death, bullying”, etc. were designed to do the opposite of what they told the parents and taxpayers they were designed to do. They were designed TO CHANGE THE CHILDREN’S VALUES FROM ABSOLUTES TO NO ABSOLUTES! (NO RIGHT, NO WRONG)

Scott, in case as a non-educator you are unaware, JOHN DEWEY was a professed MARXIST. His colleague’s would state, “Deweyism is the genuine fulfillment of Marxism”!

According to the Teach for America web site you would think they are the only ones concentrating on the low-income and poverty ridden students. The truth is this has been going on for years and they continue to use those students for experiments in education and then when it fails, blames those same students for them being given trash to learn by.

Currently the TFA website states Florida has their teachers not only in Miami-Dade but Jacksonville (KIPP). Watch those test scores go down! What does TFA look for in “teacher” quality? Well, according to their web site page it says nothing about having been educated to be an educator. By attending their five-week (that’s a #5) summer training program these young college graduates are “ready, set, go”! Compensation isn’t bad either!

Check back to Part 1 on some of the KIPP teachers who are NOT certified.

Of note here is Ms. Lipsey has been working for TFA as a Program Director in Miami-Dade and this was one of the things the Miami-Dade Superintendent requested on the Race To The Top grant – money to fund an “additional” 350 TFA teachers.

Andy Tuck the second newbie on the FL SBOE –

Richard Andrew Tuck

His name is Richard Andrew Tuck and he is from Sebring – a citrus grower and state school board Chair Chartrand stated upon his appointment, “It’s only appropriate that on the Florida Board of Education we have a citrus grower”! Really? Is that to mean along with his push for the Common Core Standards he maybe also believes in the school-to-work agenda to put the kids in the fields?

Tuck is listed on state records to be the owner and manager of Tuck Groves, Natural AG Solutions LLC and Southeast AG Management LLC.

Never having heard of him before I went to several friends in Highlands County where Tuck is from to ask their thought! Not good! Progressive, Common Core is a done deal – accept it. He was responsible for bringing the Internal Baccalaureate program to Highlands which in case you do not know is a Progressive United Nations/UNESCO curriculum that is also proprietary and no one in the FL DOE oversees anything about it.

Tuck served as a member of the Florida School Boards Association from 2012 to 2013 and was also on the Highlands County School Board for 5 years along with serving at one time as the counties Chairman of the Republican Party. His bio is not much different than Chartrand’s – a lot of words and organizations.

I was told he is Congressman Rooney’s fund raiser and he also held a fund raiser for Gov. Scott. In 2012, Scott appointed Tuck to the State Transportation Committee (I see nothing that gives him a background in this area either).

Now comes the interesting part – he also serves on the Central Florida Regional Planning Council which I think is what got him the appointment to the Florida Department of Management Services Task Force which was formed after the legislature made changes to Chapter 2013-223 Laws of Florida (HB 85) which gives FREE REIGN to any and all PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP dealings in this state. No more bidding process to name one.

At least in part the Florida State Board of Education smells to high heaven and the parents/taxpayers of Florida can expect no help from them in regard to the CCS as was witnessed by their unprofessional behavior by some of the board members and the Commissioner of Education at last week’s meeting.

Governor Scott liked this bill and I will address that at another time. Part 3 to come.

Florida’s School Board Treachery! Part 1

April 23, 2014/in Culture War, Education, Policy, Politics/by Diane Kepus

It is becoming increasingly clear that the only preservation for the children of Florida and their futures is to change how things are done in Florida. We must return the position of Commissioner of Education to an elected position; change the positions on the State School Board to an elected position or both.

The cronyism in Tallahassee has reached the highest levels it has ever been. The ethics bill last year was a smoke screen to fool us as an effort on their part to be good boys and girls. However the legislation passed in no way touched the real problems in that city and our government.

Appointing people to positions that hold the power such as the Commissioner and State School Board leaves parents out of the equation in regard to education and makes them answerable to whom? Each other and a governor who has in recent months shown us he cares less about listening to parents concerns in regard to their children’s education and it is more important to him to have dinner with Jeb Bush.

Our past 2 governors, Bush and Crist along with Rick Scott since the changes in the Florida Constitution in 2003 have given us 5 Commissioners of Education who are currently sitting on Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education; John L. Winn, Eric J. Smith, Gerard Robinson, Tony Bennett and now Pam Stewart. Has Jeb Bush been Florida’s perpetual governor?

Given the timing of the change to the Constitution (2003), the following commissioners (John Winn & Eric Smith) were given a seat on Jeb Bush’s foundation which of course is what Bush did after leaving the governor’s office – form his foundation. Do you see a little long range plan laid out here?

All of these people support the trash education of the Common Core Standards and the taxation without representation of the Charter/Choice/Voucher scheme along with the unelected school boards of the Charter schools removing the parental input into the equation. They don’t want you to know about the failures of the charter schools – much larger by percentage than traditional public schools.

The focus here is to make the Charter School Management (CSM) companies rich and the heck with what our kids learn! CSM’s fill coffers!

I want to give you the background on those dictating the futures of our children. You got a good look into the disrespect and arrogance of the SBOE Chairman this past Tuesday. We saw the board members talking to each other, messing with their iPads or phones, conversing with the administrative assistant through the whole time while over 95 taxpayers explained their point of views in regard to Common Core and education in general.

They didn’t even have the decency to have a conversation amongst themselves in regard to any of the issues brought up by the speakers before taking their vote. The 2 new board members (and there is history there also) spoke basically in favor of the vote that was about to take place with Tuck (new kid on the block) even stating we have to move into the 21^st Century.

Florida State School Board:

Gary Chartrand

Gary Chartrand came to the board in 2011 and of course is now serving as its chairman. His business background is pretty impressive as being one of those individuals who sits on every board you can think of. It is always supposed to make your resume look better. Other than the KIPP Charter school thing I can’t find any reason for Scott to appoint him to the board.

Know that no matter how impressive Chartrand’s bio is, it is what it doesn’t say that is important. He has absolutely no background in education except for being involved in bringing Kipp Charter schools and Teach for America (TFA) teachers to Jacksonville. He is a lot like Al Gore – “he knows not of what he speaks”. And his actions are getting rather loud.

Not a classroom, not a school office, not even a school janitor – he has no qualifications to sit on the Florida State Board of Education. It is a little bit like asking a Construction Engineer to teach a Home Economy class (do they still have those?). Or maybe a professional chef to build a bridge!

Under Chartrand’ s direction the board’s 3 decisions in regard to a choice for the states “Unelected” Commissioner of Education have been less than stellar and it would lead those who follow these things to ask who was really behind these choices. Remembering our last five (5) including our present commissioner are also “reformer’s – (formerly chief’s for change) on Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education. Maybe they just wanted to make sure they had someone who would tow the line.

The main problem here is these choices rather than being individuals interested in actually improving our children’s education, the choice of commissioners were those whose main goal was to privatize our education instead. (Charter Schools)

Chartrand has been applauded for the KIPP Charter schools in Jacksonville – but of course he has given his allegiance to Charter schools. The state’s agenda is charter schools; however his results shown here so far are not any better than his performance as the SSBOE chairman. Chartrand, who helped raise $9 million to bring a KIPP elementary school to Jacksonville, also donated $1 million toward the network’s elementary school in the same city.

KIPP Impact Middle School is of course planted in a “low-income” area which to this writer gives them an out excuse for failure which is where a good amount of charter schools put themselves, low-income areas. 98% of the students are minority and 89% are Title I students both of which bring in extra funds for the school. Started in 2010, their first year grade was an F with less than 30% achieving the FCAT of 25% or less in reading and for math 67% reached the level of 25% or less. Not good.

When Commissioner Robinson made his famous trip to Jacksonville to look into the implementation of another KIPP school (I wonder what his interest was?), he was asked by a reported if he was going to take into consideration the existing Kipp school had received and F, he responded, “we don’t use that as the criteria for allowing new schools to open”.

Wow! Given the Florida State School Board allows D and F Charter schools (of which there are many more than traditional public schools) stay open for far longer than they should, one does have to ask “What are they doing”?

The mission statement for KIPP Jacksonville Schools is to prepare our students with the academic and character skills necessary to succeed in high school, college and the competitive world beyond. Not at this rate!

Something else I discovered while doing this posting. KIPP and Charter Schools USA send their teachers to what is called the Clarion Council For Educational Greatness in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Though not clear, it looks like it is owned by Charter Schools USA and when you go to the web site and try to see what the training is – you have to have a “Clarion Training” password. Secrets, always secrets.

KIPP’s Accountability report for the 2010-2011 school years – AFRICAN-AMERICAN, ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED KIPP IMPACT MIDDLE SCHOOL has not met federal adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind because it needs improvement in one or more areas. Because this is a Title I school, your student may be eligible for school choice options under No Child Left Behind.

Charter schools are School Choice so where do these students go if the school were to remain a failure. In fairness I admit they garnered a C the following year after the change to the grading process – no figures for the 2012-2013 year. But then the full accountability figures have not been posted on the Florida DOE web site since 2011. HUM!

More on Kipp Jacksonville Schools according to the 2012-13 FL Charter School Accountability Report:

Kipp Imagine: 4 of the 8 teachers are Teach For America teachers; 6 of the 8 teachers are not certified but are being paid at the same rate as the certified with benefits; average salary with benefits $48,125; 86.66% rated NOT Highly Qualified; 82.35% Teaching out of their field; in the hole financially at the end of the year $14, 000+ and have a large note due to KIPP,Inc.

Kipp Voice: 8 of the 12 teachers Are Teach For America teachers; only 1 is NOT certified; 100% of the teachers are teaching out of their field; their salaries are equivalent to those of Imagine.

Both schools are NOT certified and rent their building from McDuff Qalicb, Inc. of Jax and they are in a relationship with Kipp, Inc. but how is not clear. Both schools hold board meetings once a quarter and at one of the recent meetings Gary Chartrand asked Ashley Ferguson who is listed as the principal of both schools about her views on the Common Core vs. Florida State standards. There was general discussion about this. She is also a TFA girl!

It’s too bad that Chartrand couldn’t find it in his heart to leave his ego at the door of the board room but then we tin-hatter’s all know that most of the people we are dealing with today have enormous ego’s.

Part 2: Andy Tuck and Rebecca Fishman Lipsey – the new kids

Atheism, Evolution and Secular Humanism Masquerading as Science Against the Bible and Creation

April 23, 2014/in Commentary, Culture War, Science/by Dr. Richard Ruhling, MD

God as The Architect. From: The Frontispiece of Bible Moralisee, Circa 13th Century.

Science and the Bible are not in conflict, because they have the same Author. The issue is how one’s belief can shape the interpretation of our findings. There are thousands of scientists who are also Christian or Jewish and who find it unlikely if not impossible that everything we see in the universe, including life on earth, came from a Big Bang in contrast to what the Bible says.

Science depends on research. Consider our limited opportunities–our lives are brief; our vision is limited; and we can make huge mistakes, when it comes to events we think were before Bible history. Here are a few examples:

How often the supposed deductions from some scientists are revised or cast aside;
With what readiness the assumed period of the earth’s development is from time to time increased or diminished by millions of years;
How the theories advanced by different scientists conflict with one another.

Considering all this, do we prefer to trace our descent from germs and mollusks and apes when we could have an infinitely better genealogy: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him”? Genesis 1:27.

We will look at some scientific evidence, but first we see Bible history is supported by the science of archeology back to Genesis 11. a chapter with the Towel of Babel that is the basis of the European Union poster, “Europe: Many Tongues, One Voice.”

There is archeological support for Noah’s ark in addition Christ’s reference to Noah in Matthew 24:37. It is intesting that the Bible says eight people were in the ark and the Chinese character for flood is a boat with eight people.

But culture goes even further back than Genesis 5 to support the creation week of Genesis 1, 2 because cultures worldwide have observed a 7-day week from antiquity, and their word for the 7th-day is a derivative of Sabbath, Shabbat, Sabado, in most languages.

Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, visited hundreds of college campuses and talked with many professors, some of whom could not bring themselves to believe in such a book of myths as the Bible. But on closer questioning, most them were embarrassed about the simplest questions about it and confessed that they were not ready to accept the moral obligation that belief in Scripture meant.

On the other hand, Wayne Carlson, an atheist was dying of cancer and told his brother, a chaplain, that in the end, life doesn’t make much sense if there is no God. He had a change of mind, which is what the Bible calls repentance.

Dr. Antony Flew, famed atheist, when he came to appreciate the complexity of the DNA molecule, surrendered his view of atheism and accepted God as the the best alternative.

There are numerous systems in the body requiring complex interaction, like a cascade of eight reactions in sequence for the clotting of blood. If we needed millions of years for these to have evolved, the Neanderthal man would have bled to death when he cut himself. The development of the eye is infinitely more complex. Intelligent Design implies a Designer.

Dr. Robert Gentry, a nuclear physicist who believed in evolution until his discovery of pleochroic halos in granite offered irrefutable evidence against the evolutionary theory that this world exploded off the sun and cooled over eons.

Etched within Earth’s foundation rocks – the granites – are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the split-second radioactive decay of primordial polonium..

The following analogy shows how polonium microspheres – or halos – contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. But the halos support both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock is like an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radioactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have been preserved only if the rapidly “effervescing” specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles in ice would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly “froze” into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that the energy systems of the universe tend to run down and tend to disorder unless acted upon by some outside force. This is seen when our desk needs organizing, the kitchen sink needs cleaning or the garage is chaos. Things don’t get organized by themselves.

A scientist cited in TIME Magazine said, that to believe everything came from a “Big Bang” is like thinking a jumbo jet came from an explosion in a junk yard. We might wonder how our planets all came to orbit around the sun at such a huge variation in distance, not drawn back to the sun by gravitation, nor flying off into space. And how did the planets get moons? Saturn has 62 moons so far.

Scientist Bill Nye in a recent debate seen by 5+ million, wished for predictability, but science is about observing facts, not about predicting them. By contrast, in his parable of Matthew 22:7, Christ predicted the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred less than 40 years later in 70 AD. He also gave a head’s up sign for his followers so that not a Christian lost their life in that holocaust. The point is that those signs could reapply this spring if a 3rd Intifada develops.

Obama Has Destroyed Our Values

April 23, 2014/in Culture War, Must Read, News/by Raynard Jackson

Those who read me regularly know that I have been extremely critical of the Obama presidency; but it has always been on the issues. I have never denigrated the “office of the presidency” or made personal attacks on President Obama.

This has been one of my most difficult columns I have ever written. The only thing I can compare it to is when a parent has to sit their child down and tell them that they have embarrassed the family’s name and reputation; and if their behavior doesn’t change, the family will be forced to turn their back on them and sever familial ties.

President Obama has done more to destroy the social and moral fabric of America than anyone in the history of our country. He wants to grant amnesty to those in the country illegally, arbitrarily give legal protection to homosexuals when there is absolutely no accommodation for this in the U.S. Constitution, and legalize drugs.

To my opponents, before you fly off into an emotional rage, please open your minds and actually read what I have to say.

Obama’s argument supporting amnesty for illegals is that their only crime is wanting a better life. Well, I can make the same argument for someone who is arrested for selling small amounts of drugs to put food on the table. So, according to this logic, Obama should release all nonviolent drug offenders who have been imprisoned for possessing small amounts of drugs.

Why is he so obsessed with “giving” entitlements to those in the country illegally? Rights are something that are guaranteed because you are a member of a certain group, i.e. an American citizen. These rights stem from a source document, in this case, the U.S. Constitution. Illegals do not have a right to be here; but liberals and some Republicans believe they are entitled to have American citizenship. You don’t earn entitlements, they are simply given. American citizenship is a privilege, not a right.

My readers know my position on homosexuality – don’t support it, period. My rationale is quite simple. Homosexuals do not deserve special treatment because of their sexual preferences, but they do deserve equal treatment because of their humanity. If president Obama spent nearly as much time talking about the exorbitantly high Black unemployment rate as does homosexual entitlements, there would be no unemployment in the Black community.

The latest foray into the downfall of our country by this president is when Obama basically said that smoking marijuana is okay and should be legal.

Obama was asked by the New Yorker magazine if he thought marijuana was worse than alcohol. His response was, “I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.” The reporter then asked the president if marijuana was less dangerous than alcohol and Obama responded with, “it was in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.”

A sitting president must always be careful of what comes out of his mouth. He must understand that every word has consequences both domestically and abroad.

Obama is a president who has told our kids that illegal behavior should be rewarded—citizenship to those who have entered our country illegally. So then how do parents make the arguments to their kids that breaking the rules have consequences when our own president tells 30 million illegals that America will not enforce their own laws when it comes to our immigration policy?

How does Obama reconcile telling kids that your sexual identity is not determined at birth, but rather by you self identifying what your sexuality is based on your mood on any given day? You were born with male genitalia, but you self identify as a female. Huh? That is not medically or scientifically possible.

So, now he is telling kids that using drugs is okay.

Since Obama and Democrats believes it takes a village to raise a child; how does a parent explain to their child that the president is wrong on these issues? Granted, no one should have more influence on your kid than you, as a parent.

We are becoming a country of no laws, boundaries, morals, or values. A country cannot survive when there are no rules governing acceptable behavior. Before Obama, it was unthinkable that illegals would be given rights that even American citizens cannot get, i.e., instate tuition for university. Before Obama, it was inconceivable that our foreign aid would be predicated on forcing countries to aggressively promote homosexual entitlements in their countries.

Two months ago no one in this country would have ever thought they would see the day when a sitting president would pronounce, in the White House, that he supported legalizing drugs. As Jeremiah asked in his day, I also ask, “Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered (Jeremiah 8:22)?

For the last five years, our nation has had a vicious assault on God and Christianity. We have been bombarded with messages that there are no absolutes, everything is relative. Man has become the measure of all things; to acknowledge the existence of a God has become a punch line in the public square.

I am convinced that the next presidential candidate that addresses these issues from a “traditional values” perspective will be the next president of the United States. We have drifted too far to the left and we must find a candidate that truly believes in traditional values.

Florida: Stetson University and Amer Ahmed’s Support for Religious Apartheid

April 23, 2014/in Culture War, Must Read, National Security/by Alan Kornman

Last year Stetson Universities Cross Cultural Center and Multicultural Student Council presented a lecture on ‘Addressing Islamophobia: Proactive Efforts to Address Hate and Bias on and off Campus’ led by Amer F. Ahmed.

Amer F. Ahmed, Associate Director, Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs, University of Michigan supports Islamic Religious Apartheid and called all non-Muslims a violent threat to Mecca. Ms. Yolany Gonell, Director of Diversity & Inclusion stood silent as Mr. Ahmed was making these vile statements during his lecture. Mr. Ahmed’s comments make a mockery of diversity and Inclusion.

Mr. Ahmed’s lecture was advertised as open to the public and all were welcome. I had my video camera set up to document the event when Stetson Public Safety Officer Sgt. Casey told me I could not film under threat of arrest.

To follow is an exchange between Mr. Ahmed and myself focusing on the fact all non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca and Medina.

Mecca and Medina Islamic Apartheid Cities – A Dialogue

Audience member asks Mr. Ahmed: “Is it true that your God is the same as our God, like the Christian God?”

Mr. Ahmed: “That’s what Muslims view the same God and we view our religion as an extension of the same traditions, so in the Islamic tradition it is believed that those who believe the teachings of the previous prophets are our brothers and sisters, because we are all worshipping the same God. And its the same message that has come over and over again by all the prophets.”

I ask: “If we are all brothers and sisters why is it illegal for non-Muslims to step foot in Mecca or Medina and not just during the Hajj, but we’re talking the whole city, its like apartheid on steroids.”

Mr. Ahmed responds: “so Medina anyone can go into Medina, its Mecca that only Muslims can enter.”

I say: “If we are all brothers and sisters why is that?”

Mr. Ahmed responds: “Because it has been a place that has been under attack in the past, and so it is a place which there are very sacred rituals partaken upon so its a holy sacred site, so if you just open it up it leaves room for those who can do things that might be problematic in the broader sense.”

I say: “So your saying that non-Muslims are going to attack Mecca?”

Mr Ahmed says: “Its happened before, so (stops mid sentence).

I say: “So non-Muslims are not allowed in the city limits of Mecca because we are a threat. I take offense at that because it is hateful and hurtful to me.”

Mr. Ahmed does not respond, moves on to another subject but says he will get back to this exchange.

Before I tell you the rest of the dialogue between Mr. Ahmed and myself lets do a little fact checking on Mr. Ahmed’s statements of fact.

1. Medina is open to non-Muslim (Lie): According to the US Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs it says, “Non-Muslims are forbidden to travel to the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah.”

2. Mecca is closed to non-Muslims under threat of arrest (True).

3. Non-Muslims Attacked Mecca before: (Lie) The last attack on Mecca was in 1979 by the devout Muslims of Juhayman al-Otaybi, who belonged to the powerful family of Najd. There is nothing in the historical record validating Mr. Ahmed’s claim.

The Mecca and Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid is a commonly accepted cultural practice by most every Mosque here in the United States. Mosques across the United States encourage every Muslim to visit the Islamic Religious Apartheid Cities of Mecca and Medina even though they know it is illegal for Christians, Jewish, Hindu, Agnostics, and all non-Muslims to do the same. Islamic Religious Apartheid is happening today despite all the talk that we non-Muslims are brothers and sisters of the Abrahamic traditions.

Mr. Ahmed, true brothers and sisters would not practice Islamic Religious Apartheid like Islam does in Saudi Arabia. True Muslim brothers and sisters would scream from the roof tops and minarets this bigoted exclusionary practice be stopped. True Muslim brothers and sisters would demand the opening of Mecca and Medina to all people.

Ahmer Ahmed realized in our exchange he exposed his heartfelt beliefs supporting the Mecca/Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid against all non-Muslims. Mr. Ahmed made these hate filled views in a failed effort to defend the 5th Pillar of Islam.

Ahmer Ahmed Calls Saudi Arabia a Cancer

Mr. Ahmed says, “I am not a defender of the country of Saudi Arabia, it is a false country…ruled by a group of people who were propped up…They have a very specific interpretation of Islam that is in no way, shape, or form mainstream…it was that way back then and now.”

Mr. Ahmed continues, “Now if you go to Arabia you can’t even debate. Scholars who challenge their interpretations of Islam are killed.”

Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, is following the Qur’an when they keep Mecca and Medina pure by excluding non-Muslims. Mr. Ahmed leads the audience to a false conclusion by solely blaming Saudi Arabia for Islamic Religious Apartheid when in fact it is the Qur’an that’s to blame.

Amer Ahmed Answers My Question

Mr. Ahmed says, “It is controversial for me to say this because many Muslims are afraid to speak out against Saudi Arabia…because its like they rule over the holiest places in the Muslim world…I think it (Saudi Arabia) is a cancer because of the influence they have had, some things are good, but for the most part they have made the religion more rigid and less inclusive and that is an example why they (Saudi Arabia) have the policies you were talking about sir.”

Mr. Ahmed is lying to the Stetson University audience by implying the Mecca and Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid is the sole fault of Saudi Arabia.

The Qur’an is the source of the Mecca and Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid we see today. My source for this Qur’an quote is from my very own Abdullah Yusuf Ali version of the The Meaning of The Holy Qur’an. Ironically, Saudi Arabia is responsible for this Qur’an’s wide distribution in the United States.

I was given this Qur’an by my friends at the Masjid Al-Salam in Sanford, FL where I made several visits to learn about Islamic doctrine first hand.

Al-Quran 9:28

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَٰذَا ۚ وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَاءَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

The Qur’an footnote 1278 states, “Pagans are Unclean both literally and metaphorically…as well as purity of mind and heart, so that their word can [not] be relied upon.”

“so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque” is the key phrase here to understand. After Mohammad conquered Mecca on January 11, 630 AD he received a revelation from Allah that non-Muslims would not be allowed to approach the sacred Mosque. According to the Yusuf Ali Qur’an footnote 1278 all of us non-Muslims were seen by Mohammad and Allah as unclean, both literally and metaphorically. According to Qur’an 9:28 we (non-Muslims) are unclean and will desecrate the precious lands of Mecca and Medina.

The followers of Islam believe the Qur’an is the exact word of Allah/God down to the last letter and has never been corrupted by man. Islamic doctrine teaches all other religious texts like the Bible and Torah have been corrupted by man.

Saudi Arabia is following the Qur’an as its source document in enforcing the Islamic Religious Apartheid of Mecca and Medina. What’s not to like about that – everything.

Imagine If Pope Francis Talked To God And Was Told…

What if Pope Francis said God transmitted a revelation to him through the Archangel Gabriel instructing him to issue a formal decree that Vatican City including St. Peter’s Basilica and the Sistine Chapel will only be open to Catholics. If a non-Catholic is found anywhere inside Vatican City Limits they will be arrested and severely punished.

The world would be outraged by this Pope Francis decree, and justifiably so. The Pope and everyone who went along with him would be called idiots, bigots, and Religious Apartheid Supremacists.

Mohammad did exactly that, and ordained that non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca because Allah transmitted a revelation to him telling him to do so. Yet the same people who would be upset with the Pope, say nothing about Mohammad being an idiot, bigot, and a Islamic Religious Apartheid Supremacist.

Conclusion

When people like Amer Ahmed says we are all “Brothers and Sisters” he is lying. That doesn’t mean Muslims and non-Muslims can’t be friendly towards each other – it just means Islamic Doctrine teaches that Muslim and non-Muslim are not equals in the eyes of Allah.

It is impossible to know what is truly in a persons heart. Therefore, anyone who condemns an entire demographic has some serious issues. The followers of Islam who support the Religious Apartheid of Mecca and Medina are part of the problem and not the solution.

Ms. Yolany Gonell, Director of Diversity and Inclusion at Stetson University, did a great disservice to those students, faculty, and community members who attended this lecture. Ms. Gonell did not take advantage of this ‘teaching moment’ by explaining the great social injustice of the Islamic Religious Apartheid of Mecca and Medina.

I call on the worlds Muslims and non-Muslims alike to demand Mecca and Medina open its borders to all people and stop this Islamic Religious Apartheid.

Who will join me in demanding Mecca and Medina open its borders to everyone and stop discriminating against All non-Muslims?

How a Parent Chooses a School by Benjamin Scafidi, Ph.D. and James P. Kelly, III, J.D

April 23, 2014/in Culture War, Education, Must Read, Policy/by Friedman Foundation

What do parents really consider when trying to choose their child’s school from a list of options? Based on the findings from our latest study, we created a graphic simulation of a parent’s likely experience choosing a school. Take a look and share your thoughts in the comments!

The idea that impoverished parents shouldn’t be trusted to choose a good educational option for their children is one repeated often by school choice critics.

For instance, Michael Walker Jones of the Louisiana Association of Educators was quoted by the New Orleans Times-Picayune saying, “If I’m a parent in poverty, I have no clue because I’m trying to struggle and live day to day.”

Click on the cover to download a PDF version of the study.

A Friedman Foundation study proves that idea isn’t just offensive to parents, it’s factually flawed. The study found 93 percent of parents from a large choice program, including those in poverty, are willing to take three or more time-consuming steps to obtain the information they need to make an informed decision about their child’s education.

Notably, low-income parents are most likely to rank graduation rates and college acceptance rates as the two most-important pieces of information they desire from private schools. Other important pieces for all parents include student-teacher ratios, a safe environment, and curriculum and course descriptions.

Considering the hot debate also going on around standardized test scores, this study surprisingly showed no parents listed them as the most important factor for choosing a school.

Based on what we know about parent priorities, check out this simulation of how a hypothetical parent might go about choosing a school.

Click on the info-graphic for a larger view.

As we can see, the school the parent chose did not have any available standardized test scores, yet he or she still determined it was the best fit. Many school choice opponents claim that test scores aren’t always a fair measure of the quality of education a school might offer. This is especially common in schools with large populations of kids who start off behind grade-level. School administrators and teachers in such a position worry test scores set the odds against their schools from the start. But, as the new study and our simulation show, test scores just aren’t that important to parents.

Looking with a wider lens, we see this parent actually wanted to stay in her ZIP Code yet did not choose her ZIP Code-assigned public school. Why? It didn’t outperform the other schools based on criteria she and many other parents find most relevant.

That’s not to say private schools don’t have room to improve. The parent in our simulation might have chosen a different private school had desired information been readily available. The new Friedman Foundation survey showed the failure of a private school to provide information would (79 percent) or might (20 percent) negatively impact a parent’s decision on whether to send his or her children there. So, if a school wants to attract more students, it would be in its leaders’ best interest to be transparent and accessible.

To read the full study by Benjamin Scafidi, Ph.D. and James P. Kelly, III, J.D. visit edchoice.org/MoreThanScores

Poll: GOP Voters Want Politicians to Support Natural Marriage

April 23, 2014/in Culture War, Elections, Featured, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

Click on image for downloadable copy of the survey.

WASHINGTON, PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Family Research Council (FRC) and American Values released the results of a commissioned national survey conducted by Wilson Research Strategies showing that 82 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independents believe marriage “should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.” 74 percent strongly agreed with this statement.

The same survey found that the voters want their elected leaders to promote this view in public policy: 75 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters disagree that “politicians should support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples.” 67 percent strongly disagreed with this statement.

FRC President Tony Perkins made the following comments in response to the survey:

“Republican voters continue to resist the demands of cultural elites who want to see the party abandon the very core values that gave rise to American exceptionalism. The vast majority of the GOP base continues to believe that marriage is a non-negotiable plank of the national platform and want to see their elected officials uphold natural marriage as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage and promote in law.

“The results of this survey are no surprise especially considering what has taken place in recent months. Republican voters, like everyone else, have seen that redefining marriage is really about fundamentally altering all of society. Redefining marriage undermines our fundamental freedoms of speech and religion and in the case of the Mozilla CEO, even the ability to engage in the democratic process without the fear of losing one’s livelihood.”

American Values President Gary Bauer made the following comments:

“Public policy makers are doing a great disservice to themselves and future generations by continuing to misread the convictions of the American people, who overwhelmingly support the institution of marriage as a unique union of one man and one woman. The misinformation campaign waged by media elites muddies the debate and attempts to isolate those who support the time-honored traditions and values shared by every major world religion throughout human history.

“Incredibly, the debate is no longer about privacy and tolerance. Religious liberty, free speech and rights of conscience are now at stake. This survey should remind political and cultural leaders that this debate is far from over. If anything, it is taking on a new sense of urgency for millions of men and women of faith.”

To view the results of the survey, click here: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF14D62.pdf

Poll: 43% of the Dutch want fewer Moroccans

April 23, 2014/in Culture War, Elections, Must Read, National Security, News, Politics/by Jerry Gordon

The virulent attacks on Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) by opposition parties in the ruling coalition in The Netherlands and threats to have him prosecuted for his “fewer Muslim” comments in our April NER article “Geert Wilders Once Again Endures a Firestorm of Criticism” have backfired. A new poll commissioned by the PVV reveal that Dutch voters reject those threats categorically.

A news release by the PVV today noted “43% of the Dutch want fewer Moroccans”:

At the request of the PVV, the independent research bureau “Peil.nl / Maurice de Hond” conducted an opinion poll into the view of the Dutch regarding the presence of Moroccans in the Netherlands.

No less than 43% of all the Dutch prefer to have fewer Moroccans. Only 3% wants more Moroccans, while 48% does not care how many Moroccans there are in the Netherlands. A majority of the voters of PVV (95%) and of the governing VVD (59%), but also more than one third of the voters of the Socialist SP and more than a quarter of the Labor voters prefer to have fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.

A majority of 55% of all Dutch is opposed to a criminal prosecution of PVV-leader Geert Wilders.

Geert Wilders: “The figures are very clear. Millions of Dutch agree with me. It is great, too, that a majority of the Dutch is of the opinion that I should not be prosecuted.”

This latest poll bolsters a previous one of Dutch parties in the European Parliamentary elections just one month away on May 22 to the 25^th that showed the PVV in the lead. See our March 17th Iconoclast post, “Wilder’s Freedom Party Leads Poll for Dutch European Parliament Elections”. We noted:

Geert Wilders” Freedom Party (PVV) leads in Dutch polls next month’s European Parliament elections. According to a report in the Dutch publication, Spitsnieuws:

A TNS NIPO poll published today predicts that the PVV, the Party for Freedom of Geert Wilders, will become the biggest party in the European elections in the Netherlands.

According to the poll the PVV is going to win the European elections on 22 May with 18.1% of the votes, followed by the Liberal VVD of Prime Minister Mark Rutte with 16.2% and the liberal-democrat D66 party with 15.7%.

The losers of the European elections would be the Christian-Democrats and Labor.

At the conclusion of our April NER article we said:

We hope that those Dutch folks who went to the polls on March 19^th and gave the PVV victories in several smaller municipalities may be joined by others in the majority, who didn’t vote. That might provide the PVV with a victory in the May EU parliamentary elections. We have seen Wilders bounce back from previous episodes like a proverbial cat with nine lives.

Both polls taken in the Netherlands clearly indicate that the groundlings aren’t buying the ‘extremist’ charges and calls for prosecution of Wilders. Instead they may be auguries of a possible significant victory for the Freedom Party candidates in the May 2014 European Parliamentary elections.

March against Christian Persecution, May 17, 2014 in Orlando, Florida

April 23, 2014/in Culture War, Featured, National Security, News/by Jerry Gordon

In our interview with Austrian human rights advocate and counter-jihadist Elisabeth Sabaditsch –Wolff she previewed the upcoming March against Christian Persecution, The Myth of Islamophobia: The Vienna – Phoenix Connections. We reported:

She discussed the forthcoming May 17th March against persecution of Christians in Orlando, Florida modeled on an annual one that occurs each December in Vienna. [The Orlando march will be held the evening of May 17th with remarks by the organizers and several speakers followed by a torch light silent parade]. [Sabaditsch-Wolff] will be coming to the US to join Florida March organizers Rev. Bruce Lieske and Alan Kornman of The United West. Lieske had witnessed the last March against Christian Persecution in Vienna and was moved to sponsor one in Florida, next month. Among the European contingent attending the Orlando March will be Sister Hatune Dogan, a Syrian Orthodox Christian Nun of Turkish origins. Read her speech in an Austrian Cathedral delivered on December 28, 2013, here.

During our interview with Sabaditsch-Wolff, she noted the canard radical Muslims typically use, “first the Saturday people, then the Sunday People. Perhaps it is time for the Saturday people to defend the imperiled Sunday people”.

Video: Prayer March For Persecuted Christians

[youtube]http://youtu.be/EumHWDhlG8w[/youtube]

That was the subject of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by the Hon. Ron Prosor, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN published last Friday, The Middle East War on Christians. Ambassador Prosor drew attention to the plight of ancient Christian communities in the Middle East and elsewhere threatened with extinction caught between warring radical Islamic extremist groups and ruling autocrats in the Middle East. He revealed that the only country in the region where Christian populations have increased is Israel. Further as we have written Orthodox Christians in Israel have rejected the label of Arab Christians as inappropriate and now unabashedly have signed up as loyal citizens to serve in the IDF according to Father Gabriel Naddaf, “Israel’s Christians Who Defend the Jewish State.”

That is evidence of what Caroline Glick wrote about, the rejection of the long term Pan Arabism position of Christian founders of the Ba’athist Parties in the Middle East and the radicals like the late George Habash, co-founder of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In our Iconoclast post we noted this comment about Fr. Naddaf.

Orlando March against Persecuted Christians May 17 2014 Orlando

For a larger printable version click on the flyer.

Yuval Brandsetter in a Jerusalem Post op ed about Fr. Naddaf, “The Good Father, “noted something that impressed us. This evident assertion of Israeli Christian identification and solidarity with Israel was a rejection of Dhimmitude; the 1,400 years of Islamic Imperialism imposed on Jews and Christians under the pact of Omar. He wrote:

In spite of his lowly position, or maybe because of it, Fr. Gabriel Naddaf has reached the conclusion that Christians residing in Israel must link their fortunes to the Jewish state. In acting on this conclusion with fortitude and a free mind, Fr. Naddaf stands in defiance of the 1,300-year legacy of dhimmitude – the legacy that both his Jerusalem Patriarch and Istanbul’s Ecumenical Patriarch continue to observe.

Prosor noted the perilous status of ancient Christian communities in the Muslim Majority Middle East:

The Middle East may be the birthplace of three monotheistic religions, but some Arab nations appear bent on making it the burial ground for one of them. For 2,000 years, Christian communities dotted the region, enriching the Arab world with literature, culture and commerce. At the turn of the 20th century, Christians made up 26% of the Middle East’s population. Today, that figure has dwindled to less than 10%. Intolerant and extremist governments are driving away the Christian communities that have lived in the Middle East since their faith was born.

In the rubble of Syrian cities like Aleppo and Damascus, Christians who refused to convert to Islam have been kidnapped, shot and beheaded by Islamist opposition fighters. In Egypt, mobs of Muslim Brotherhood members burn Coptic Christian churches in the same way they once obliterated Jewish synagogues. And in Iraq, terrorists deliberately target Christian worshippers. This past Christmas, 26 people were killed when a bomb ripped through a crowd of worshipers leaving a church in Baghdad’s southern Dora neighborhood.

Christians are losing their lives, liberties, businesses and their houses of worship across the Middle East. It is little wonder that native Christians have sought refuge in neighboring countries—yet in many cases they find themselves equally unwelcome. Over the past 10 years, nearly two-thirds of Iraq’s 1.5 million Christians have been driven from their homes. Many settled in Syria before once again becoming victims of unrelenting persecution. Syria’s Christian population has dropped from 30% in the 1920s to less than 10% today.

Prosor went on to note why Israel has become a beacon of hope for embattled Christians in the Middle East:

The scene unfolding in the Middle East is ominously familiar. At the end of World War II, almost one million Jews lived in Arab lands. The creation of Israel in 1948 precipitated an invasion of five Arab armies. When they were unable to annihilate the newborn state militarily, Arab leaders launched a campaign of terror and expulsion that decimated their ancient Jewish communities. They succeeded in purging 800,000 Jews from their lands.

Today, Israel, which I represent at the United Nations, is the only country in the Middle East with a growing Christian population. Its Christian community has increased from 34,000 in 1948 to 140,000 today; in large measure because of the freedoms Christians are afforded.

From courtrooms to classrooms and from the chambers of Parliament to chambers of commerce, Israeli Christians are leaders in every field and discipline. Salim Joubran, a Christian Arab Israeli, has served as a Supreme Court justice since 2003 and Makram Khoury is one of the best-known actors in Israel and the youngest artist to win the Israel Prize, our highest civic honor.

Father Gabriel Naddaf, a Greek Orthodox priest living in Israel, recently told me: “Human rights are not something to be taken for granted. Christians in much of the Middle East have been slaughtered and persecuted for their faith, but here in Israel they are protected.”

Perhaps Ambassador Prosor’s message will sear the consciences of American Christians and Jews to demonstrate resolve against the plague of Islamic extremism that threatens the extinction of these beleaguered ancient Middle East Christian communities. One way to demonstrate that commitment is to join the first US March against Christian Persecution in Orlando on May 17^th. The hope of the march organizers is that it may spawn dozens of others across this great land of Liberty and Freedom.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review. The featured image is courtesy of David Gouthard, Wall Street Journal, 4-19-14.

In Us We Trust? by GARY CHARTIER

April 22, 2014/in Culture War, Economy, Policy, Regulation/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

David Rose argues that trust is a prerequisite of economic growth. David C. Rose. The Moral Foundation of Economic Behavior. Oxford University Press. 2011. 269 pages. $40.16.

Economists find it easy to model human actors as rational utility maximizers, evaluating possible decisions in light of their likely outcomes and choosing those options with the most utility-maximizing consequences.

But in The Moral Foundations of Economic Behavior, David Rose argues that economic development depends on trust, and that trust can only be expected to feature prominently in a particular society when those who live in it understand key moral requirements—in particular, duties that preclude negative conduct.

As Rose notes, people who reason this way may not be particularly good trading partners. If someone assesses her options in each situation and alters her plans as her judgments about the best way to maximize her utility change, she’s unlikely to prove very reliable; she may steal from others or defraud them. And this kind of behavior will tend to dispose others not to want to trade with her. The more widespread a tendency to maximize individual utility is in a given society, the more wary people will be about trading with each other, and the more resources they will likely spend detecting and preventing opportunistic behavior.

In such a society, the benefits of widespread trade won’t be available. The society will be poor.

Those who are, in the economists’ sense, “rational” won’t be likely to behave as case-by-case maximizers. They may not be concerned about the societal consequences of fostering distrust, but they almost certainly want others to deal with them. And anyone with the reputation of being willing to cheat others is someone with whom others won’t want to trade. The discipline imposed by continuous dealing will thus dispose rational actors, even ones who might be inclined to cheat, to behave reliably.

However, the discipline of continuous dealing can’t make everyone reliable all the time. Frequently, people engaged in trading relationships are strangers, and it’s not always possible for either to be aware of the other’s reputation. And institutional mechanisms designed to require accountability from those who steal and defraud are anything but uniformly effective.

Rose focuses on a further, even more serious problem: Reputational and similar mechanisms for ensuring good behavior only work when theft and fraud can be effectively detected, but they frequently cannot. People often enjoy what Robert Frank has termed “golden opportunities”—opportunities to take advantage of others with essentially no possibility of detection. These opportunities are particularly likely to arise in connection with open-ended contracts that leave the parties with lots of discretion. One party to such a contract may be able to cheat the other with no realistic possibility of detection: While it may appear to an observer that she’s fulfilling her obligations, she may in fact be taking unfair advantage of her trading partner.

While no one may be able to detect this kind of cheating, the expectation that it might occur is enough to put a damper on people’s expectations. Trust will be inhibited, and thus so will trade—and therefore prosperity. A society can achieve the kind of wealth that widespread trust makes possible only if everyone is committed to being trustworthy even when no one’s watching and even when behaving in an untrustworthy manner won’t lead to perceptible harm to any individual.

To foster prosperity, people need to be moral, not in order to avoid bad consequences, or even in order to achieve good ones on a case-by-case basis. They need to have internalized preferences for trustworthiness—most effectively fostered by culture—that can’t be overridden by the desire to benefit themselves or others in particular situations. They need to think of the duty to be trustworthy as, effectively, absolute. A society in which people reason this way will be able to sustain widespread, persistent trust. Economic relationships among strangers will be possible, social cooperation will flourish, and prosperity will ensue.

Rose is clear that the economist qua economist can’t show that people ought to be moral, or what form moral principles ought to take. But he argues that economists can show that societies in which particular moral principles are widespread will prosper. And I’m inclined to agree: Cooperation among strangers is the foundation of prosperity, widespread trust makes cooperation possible, and a moral—and not merely instrumental—commitment to reliability is a foundation for widespread trust.

There are interesting questions to ask about Rose’s arguments: When does background injustice reduce the duty to be trustworthy? What determines when a putative moral requirement really is a moral requirement? How shall we determine just what open-ended, relational contracts actually require? But, however we resolve these questions, Rose has made a convincing case that a society full of trustworthy people will be effectively positioned to experience the miracle of economic growth.

ABOUT GARY CHARTIER

Gary Chartier is a professor of law and business ethics and associate dean of the Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business at La Sierra University in Riverside, California. He is the author of Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society, published by Cambridge University Press.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Free the Poor: Does economic freedom alleviate poverty? by Julian Adorney

April 22, 2014/in Culture War, Economy, Policy, Regulation/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, and many claim that President Johnson’s program has lifted millions out of poverty. But if we really want to help the poor, research suggests that economic freedom does more than government aid.

Economic Freedom Within the United States

In “A Dynamic Analysis of Economic Freedom and Income Inequality in the 50 States: Empirical Evidence of a Parabolic Relationship,” Daniel L. Bennett and Richard K. Vedder argue that, past a certain point, economic freedom decreases inequality. Increasing economic freedom benefits the poor and middle class more than it helps the wealthy.

Bennett and Vedder analyze the 50 states in terms of their economic freedom and their income inequality over 25 years (from 1979 to 2004). Bennett and Vedder define economic freedom as more or less the degree to which government is limited. They measured and ranked states according to the size of government, the level of taxation, and the level of labor market regulation. They define income inequality using the Gini coefficient. Because different states have radically different levels of economic freedom (compare New York and North Dakota, for instance), the authors were able to draw on a wealth of data about relative economic freedom in 50 distinct economies.

The authors find a parabolic relationship between a state’s economic freedom and its income inequality. As states initially become more economically free, most of the gains go to the wealthy. But at a certain inflection point X, which 21 states had already hit by 2004, the relationship shifts: past this point, as states become more free, income inequality declines.

But does income inequality decline because the rich lose wealth (perhaps through fewer opportunities for crony capitalism), or because the gains from increasing economic freedom go primarily to the poor? In “Income Inequality and Economic Freedom in the U.S. States,” Nathan J. Ashby and Russell S. Sobel find that it’s the latter.

Ashby and Sobel analyze the 48 states of the continental United States in terms of their economic freedom and the incomes of their poor, middle-class, and wealthy residents over 20 years (from the early 1980s to the early 2000s). They use the same measure of economic freedom as Bennett and Vedder.

The authors find a strong positive correlation between a state’s economic freedom and the income level of the poorest 20 percent of residents. Freer states did better by their poor than less free ones. In particular, Ashby and Sobel found that increasing the economic freedom of a state by one unit (equivalent to moving from 40th-freest state to 7th freest-state) increased the incomes of its poorest residents by 11 percent. By contrast, the same change increased the incomes of the richest quintile by just over a third of that (4.3 percent). The middle class also saw increases, greater than the rich but less than the poor. Increasing a state’s economic freedom by reducing taxation and regulation creates broadly shared prosperity across all quintiles. Their research helps explain why, as states become more economically free, their income inequality declines: The poor and the middle class see more gains than the wealthy.

But couldn’t this be a case of mistaken causality? Maybe some states have less poverty because they have more natural resources. With less poverty, they need less government to help the poor, meaning they’re economically freer. But Ashby and Sobel anticipated this claim. They control for about a dozen variables, including education, geography, and median income. The last controlled variable is especially important; it places richer and poorer states on a level playing field, so to speak, for the study. It combats the idea that perhaps wealthier states need less government because they have less poverty, and firmly points the arrow of causality toward economic freedom reducing poverty.

Ashby and Sobel’s research is a compelling argument against government poverty programs. Other research, for instance the Mercatus Center’s Freedom in the 50 States annual report, notes the positive effects of economic freedom on aggregate economic growth. But because their data is left in the aggregate, it’s difficult to determine to whom exactly the economic gains go. But by breaking down their research by quintile, Ashby and Sobel make a case that economic growth especially helps the poor.

Economic Freedom Worldwide

Nor is the connection between economic freedom and bottom-rung prosperity unique to the United States. Recent research in the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) 2013 Annual Report finds the same trend internationally.

The Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) Annual Report, published by the Fraser Institute, analyzes around 150 countries in terms of factors like their economic freedom, closeness to a laissez-faire state, poverty levels, and per capita income. The results are a striking indictment of the idea that more government intervention in the economy can help the poor.

As EFW points out, the shares of a country’s GDP going to the bottom 10 percent are pretty consistent regardless of how free the country is. From communist states to progressive countries to almost laissez-faire societies, the poorest 10 percent of citizens receive about 2.5 percent of the country’s wealth. No amount of progressive policies has changed that number. But for the poor, life is still much better in an economically free country than in one with more government. More economically free countries have more wealth than less free ones, meaning the poorest 10 percent can end up with thousands of dollars more per year. The poorest citizens of the 25 percent most-free countries earn an average of $10,556 per year. The poorest citizens in the middle 50 percent of countries earn less than a third of that.

So why does more economic freedom mean less poverty? The answers are well-known to libertarians, but worth reviewing. In societies with more economic freedom, decreased taxes and regulation make it easier to accumulate savings and to start or expand a business. Today in the United States, getting permits and navigating the legal maze to start a business can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Getting the permit for a food truck, and complying with the various laws, can cost $15,000 at the high end. Regulations in the United States overall cost about 1.5 percent of the country’s income per capita. But in other countries this cost is even higher; in Germany regulations sap 4.7 percent of the nation’s income per capita. In Italy it’s 14.2 percent.

Some of these regulations drain money from existing corporations, leaving them with fewer funds to expand; others impose hefty costs on anyone wishing to start a business. Both ultimately discourage wealth creation. Countries or states with more economic freedom therefore have more jobs, more innovation, and more goods and services—ultimately more wealth—than societies burdened by a heavy government.

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, legislators would do well to bear these data in mind. The cure for poverty is not more well-meaning government programs to make the United States resemble Europe. The solution, as it has always been, is more economic freedom.

ABOUT JULIAN ADORNEY

Julian Adorney is an entrepreneur and fiction writer. He has written for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and runs a libertarian blog.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

An Open Letter to Brandeis University

April 22, 2014/in Culture War, National Security/by Tabitha Korol

Dear Brandeis University faculty,

I used to admire your University; my son-in-law is a Brandeis graduate, so how could you have allowed a takeover by CAIR?. How could you have permitted them to usurp all the authority and withdraw your offer to one of the heroines of the modern generation! What a black eye on your school, your staff, and America! Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves the award for speaking out against Islam, an ideology that is responsible for perhaps the biggest joke ever played on human beings – that the women have disfigured, be in constant bondage, subservient to men, and that the ignorant would side with the perpetrators of such a crime.

I say ignorant because that is the only thing that makes any sense to have both your administrators and staff turn against the victims of one of the most evil ideologies ever to exist. If it’s not ignorance, then they have become as evil as those who commit the crimes of home bondage, rape, beheadings, female genital mutilation, chopping limbs, and stonings. Then you might as well join the forces who are wearing the hijabs and burqas because if you’re not doing it yet, you’ll be doing it soon enough. You have empowered the proponents of Sharia to set the rules by which you will live. You have allowed the immigrants to set the rules for the host population, thereby making them the victors and the Americans the vanquished.

How much longer will you permit this to continue and to what extent? What accommodations will you make next? Prayers five times a day to Allah? Will you start ordering prayer rugs and be sure you have a room large enough for all the students to use? Will you so severely alter your classes so that they will be the equivalent of madrasses?

Shame on you! Wake up and see what Islam has done to the Middle East, killing more than 270 million poeple over 1400 centuries to turn a once-non Islamic land mass to one that is entirely subservient to a tyrannic system. Look at Europe! England has accepted Sharia in such ways that, if the original population doesn’t rise up soon, that country will be lost, all because they insist they want peace. Sweden has become the rape capital of the world. Norway is lost, controlled by Nazism and Islam. France’s streets are blocked with the behinds of the observant immigrants and Marseilles and other cities have been degraded with the trash seen in the impoverished cities of Morocco.

Islam is here to become dominant. You are complicit in losing our country. How will you face your children and grandchildren and the parents of the students, who you robbed because you were supposed to protect them and teach them American citizenry, rather than Islamic subjugation. The Islamic way of life cannot co-exist with our Constitution. You are allowing the destruction of our Constitution. The future is in your hands and in the hands of other Universities who, unfortunately, do not deserve the right to teach our progeny. May the parents grasp the meaning of your actions and pull the students out before they are severely damaged.

Please retract your statements, say NO! to CAIR. You have it within your power to stop this.

Wake up, please; please, wake up.

Shock Study: As public school funding increased student SAT scores decreased

April 21, 2014/in Culture War, Education, Featured, News, Policy, Taxes, Uncategorized/by Dr. Rich Swier

Long-term trends in academic performance and spending are valuable tools for evaluating past education policies and informing current ones. But such data have been scarce at the state level, where the most important education policy decisions are made. State spending data exist reaching back to the 1960s, but the figures have been scattered across many different publications. State-level academic performance data are either nonexistent prior to 1990 or, as in the case of the SAT, are unrepresentative of statewide student populations.

Using a time-series regression approach described in a separate publication, this CATO Institute paper adjusts state SAT score averages for factors such as participation rate and student demographics, which are known to affect outcomes, then validates the results against recent state-level National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test scores.

This CATO study produces continuous, state-representative estimated SAT score trends reaching back to 1972.

The CATO Institute presents paper charts of these trends against both inflation-adjusted per pupil spending and the raw, unadjusted SAT results, providing an unprecedented perspective on American education inputs and outcomes over the past 40 years.

The CATO study found:

In general, the findings are not encouraging.

Adjusted state SAT scores have declined by an average of 3 percent. This echoes the picture of stagnating achievement among American 17-year-olds painted by the Long Term Trends portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a series of tests administered to a nationally representative sample of students since 1970. That disappointing record comes despite a more-than-doubling in inflation-adjusted per pupil public-school spending over the same period (the average state spending increase was 120 percent).

Consistent with those patterns, there has been essentially no correlation between what states have spent on education and their measured academic outcomes. In other words, America’s educational productivity appears to have collapsed, at least as measured by the NAEP and the SAT.

That is remarkably unusual. In virtually every other field, productivity has risen over this period thanks to the adoption of countless technological
advances—advances that, in many cases, would seem ideally suited to facilitating learning. And yet, surrounded by this torrent of progress, education has remained anchored to the riverbed, watching the rest of the world rush past it.

Not only have dramatic spending increases been unaccompanied by improvements in performance, the same is true of the occasional spending declines experienced by some states. At one time or another over the past four decades, Alaska, California, Florida, and New York all experienced multi-year periods over which real spending fell substantially (20 percent or more of their 1972 expenditure levels). And yet, none of these states experienced noticeable declines in adjusted SAT scores—either contemporaneously or lagged by a few years. Indeed, their score trends seem entirely disconnected from their rising and falling levels of spending. [Emphasis added]

Following are the state charts for Florida:

To view the results for your state go to State Education Trends

For a larger view click on the chart. Courtesy of CATO Institute.